Patrick, Thanks a lot and I will add this to the notes document. I was actually thinking of asking you for more details; I should have. I suppose I felt like the generic summary I copied was a good description to get a "feel" for the way NARS handles time (my notes were kind of uneven and it really deserves proper research).
The folder with all my materials from the "time" event is here --> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HijCci1_USpw6X8S6F5I-Skah_TQkf2-?usp=sharing There is a second "time" event by the Philosophy Club, but I'm not linking to it from our AGI forum, if anyone is interested with some Sunday armchair philosophizing. It's a discussion of the Bergson vs. Einstein debate which will probably be interesting (philosophy vs physics): https://www.meetup.com/The-Philosophy-Club/events/283106532/ On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 7:20:59 AM UTC-8 [email protected] wrote: > Hi Mike! > > This is a valuable summary, thank you! The NARS descriptions in your > document regarding time are still valid, my only critique is that they are > quite generic. Over the years we have filled in many details we are happy > to share with you if you want. We also implemented the principles in an > efficient way, and demonstrated them to work well in rich streams of events > such as necessary to control a robot with multiple sensor modalities. > Getting this right was pretty much our main focus between 2015 and 2020, > together with other sensorimotor aspects and attention allocation which > highly depends on timing. Since we are very happy with the outcome we moved > on to other issues and the strengths of NAL-based declarative reasoning. > > Here a very simple example of an a-b event sequence using "OpenNARS for > Applications" ( https://github.com/opennars/OpenNARS-for-Applications ): > > > > *Input: a. :|: occurrenceTime=1 Priority=1.000000 Truth: > frequency=1.000000, confidence=0.900000Input: b. :|: occurrenceTime=2 > Priority=1.000000 Truth: frequency=1.000000, confidence=0.900000Derived: > dt=1.000000 <a =/> b>. Priority=0.348301 Truth: frequency=1.000000, > confidence=0.282230* > As you see, there is an occurrence time value which is assigned to each > event, this is how before/after can be decided, and how the dt (time delta) > of the induced hypothesis is calculated. > The time delta is required to decide the occurrence time of a prediction > of *b*. Additionally, if *b* does not happen after *a*, negative evidence > is attributed to the hypothesis *<a =/> b>*. > Additionally, a projection formula is used to decay the confidence of a > conclusion dependent on time distance between the premises, but patterns > which span higher time distances can still become higher-confident than > short time-distance ones via revision (repeated occurrence). Projection > also allows to revise hypotheses with varying time deltas to learn proper > timing expectations (since timing itself is uncertain), and to handle > timing variations in decision making. > > In the reasoning literature there are many ideas how to formalize and > handle time, but most of them wouldn't work for AGI, or aren't practical > for various reasons such as not being able to handle timing variations and > uncertainties in timing in general even though they are crucial. As a rule > of thumb, I suggest to be skeptical about anything which only exists in > papers, it's way easier to describe something than to describe something > which could really work, and then to make it work reliably. I'm convinced > timing happens to be a key aspect of AGI as I think you have rightly > identified, it's one of the things which have to be properly handled at the > beginning and is hard to add to a system later. Humans' attention > allocation and decision making is strongly bound to the current moment, > though our decisions are not fully determined by the current moment but > strongly controlled by our intentions and also previous results of > reasoning. > > Best regards, > Patrick > > > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 7:49:36 AM UTC+1 Mike Archbold wrote: > >> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 10:28:03 PM UTC-8 linas wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Yeah, I understand. I'm just doing a sales job here. Besides the systems >>> you mention, there are at least another dozen or two, at various >>> Universities, in assorted robotics and AI labs. And more recently, Lord >>> knows how many dozens, if not hundreds, being created in big companies and >>> small startups. The overwhelming modus operendi is that no one >>> collaborates with anyone, everyone goes it alone, re-inventing the same >>> stuff, rediscovering the same ideas, over and over. >>> >>> I'm doing what little I can to promote collaboration, to get everyone >>> working on a common, shared software base and infrastructure. And part of >>> that, in this case, is trying to sell you on the wonders and miracles that >>> await in opencog/atomspace-land. I don't expect you or anyone in your >>> audience to roll up their sleeves and start coding or anything like that, >>> but by pumping it up, doing a hard sell thing, I'm hoping to spread the >>> word, to say "Hey everyone! Lets at least collaborate on a common generic >>> infrastructure, something that can benefit everyone". Get that message >>> out. You are just today's target, that's all. >>> >>> -- Linas >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 11:26 PM Mike Archbold <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks... I will update the notes. The notes are VERY general, just to >>>> get a "feel" was my intent, not a criticism or drawing comparisons.... the >>>> coverage is uneven. So, I say it's "notes" and it's not proper research... >>>> I bolded ACT-R only for emphasis on what sounds like a key feature of the >>>> design, not even related to the time. I don't know much ACT-R, which is >>>> why >>>> I stuck a long description in there. It sounds like you've done a lot of >>>> great work on OpenCog. >>>> >>>> On Friday, February 11, 2022 at 7:48:38 PM UTC-8 linas wrote: >>>> >>>>> And one final hopefully short comment: >>>>> >>>>> > NARS, SOAR, ACT-R >>>>> >>>>> I want to draw a few more distinctions. First, "classic" OpenCog is >>>>> (was?) a theory of mind or a theory of cognition (a "cognitive model"?), >>>>> having more than a few similarities to the above systems. This "classic" >>>>> OpenCog is described in several books by Goertzel et al, and assorted >>>>> papers, conference proceedings, etc. Assorted variants of it were built. >>>>> >>>>> All of these incarnations of OpenCog were built on a generic >>>>> infrastructure, the "Atomspace". The AtomSpace is meant to provide an >>>>> "easy-to-use" base on which different cognitive theories can be created, >>>>> explored, developed. It tries to be impartial, providing a collection of >>>>> tinker-toy parts which you can assemble yourself, or extend, implement, >>>>> re-implement as needed to pursue any one particular theory or vision of >>>>> what cognition is. >>>>> >>>>> Because we've turned the crank on this 3 or 4 or 5 times, the lower >>>>> layers have gotten fairly generic, and are debugged, stable, >>>>> performance-optimized and can support the weight of more complex devices >>>>> to >>>>> be built on top of them. The exploration of higher layers continues >>>>> unabated. Most of what you abstracted about NARS, SOAR, ACT-R would >>>>> count >>>>> as "higher layers". >>>>> >>>>> To rephrase: the AtomSpace allows you to "roll your own" temporal >>>>> logic. I don't care- have at it, use your favorite theory. You mention >>>>> ACT-R as having declarative, and procedural memory, and ACT-R being a >>>>> production system. Sure, we can do all three styles in the AtomSpace, >>>>> simultaneously, on the same data. I don't care: do it however you want. >>>>> You >>>>> bolded: At each moment, an internal pattern matcher [in ACT-R] >>>>> searches for a production that matches the current state of the buffers. >>>>> Only one such production can be executed at a given moment By >>>>> contrast, in the AtomSpace, you can run productions one at a time, or in >>>>> parallel, or distributed across the network. Don't care. Or, instead of >>>>> productions, you can use term-rewriting, graph rewriting, don't care. The >>>>> toolset is there. >>>>> >>>>> -- Linas >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 7:50 PM Linas Vepstas <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mike, >>>>>> >>>>>> > looking like CLIPS a bit to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And not by accident. There are, however, some deep and fundamental >>>>>> differences. These are: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * The "rules" are kept in a graph database that can be saved to disk >>>>>> in several formats, saved to SQL, no-SQL, and transmitted by network to >>>>>> other network nodes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * The graph store is more generic than just "rules", you can store >>>>>> anything you want in it. It's a generalized KR system. If you don't like >>>>>> the default KR style, you can invent your own: all knowledge graphs are >>>>>> not >>>>>> just static graphs, but are also executable, and you get to pick how >>>>>> that's >>>>>> done. (OK, so if you invent your own, it might not work so well with >>>>>> PLN, >>>>>> and whatever temporal subsystem gets created. So compatibility is your >>>>>> responsibility, too.) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> * Unlike CLIPS (or Prolog) rules/expressions can have more than just >>>>>> true/false values. They can be given floating-point valuations, for >>>>>> example, Bayesian probabilities or fuzzy-logic percentages. They can be >>>>>> given vector-of-floats, e.g. two numbers: probability & confidence. Or a >>>>>> vector of 653 floats, from some neural net. Or a vector of strings. Or a >>>>>> nested tree of floats and strings. Or whatever. Each valuation is a >>>>>> generic >>>>>> key-value DB. And not just only "true/false". >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The default PLN rules that are CLIPS-like use a blend of probability >>>>>> theory and fuzzy logic. But again, you don't have to use these, you can >>>>>> invent your own. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Linas >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 6:02 PM Mike Archbold <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks everybody for your comments. There is a time philosophy >>>>>>> meetup event this Sunday, and I put together some very general time >>>>>>> notes I >>>>>>> cobbled together: >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_PLknbLKL7ZGEupy6tBQR-J5rkFgt3s-dOHKn4LZKIU/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> Please let me know if further comments. I appreciate your help! >>>>>>> Mike Archbold >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>>>>> Groups "opencog" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>>>>>> send an email to [email protected]. >>>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/55185ace-56c1-4564-8b4a-4d5c175379c9n%40googlegroups.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/55185ace-56c1-4564-8b4a-4d5c175379c9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>>>>> . >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Patrick: Are they laughing at us? >>>>>> Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Patrick: Are they laughing at us? >>>>> Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "opencog" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/8eada5d7-b03e-42b8-b3bc-c68a16bbff37n%40googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/8eada5d7-b03e-42b8-b3bc-c68a16bbff37n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Patrick: Are they laughing at us? >>> Sponge Bob: No, Patrick, they are laughing next to us. >>> >>> >>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/0c3f61f8-0520-4415-ae69-10c736bea468n%40googlegroups.com.
